Request for Re-Consideration

OMAFRA Appeals Tribunal previously decided to summarily dismiss our appeal before it was heard.  We have now filed a written request within the 30 day deadline, asking the Tribunal to re-consider its decision to summarily dismiss our appeal.

This is somewhat of an act of desperation.  It is unclear if a Tribunal is able to self-correct any errors that it may create from time to time.  In this case, that system of correction will be put to the test.

I complain about:

• The lack of clarity, and the numerous ambiguities throughout the decision.
• The silence of the Tribunal on the key case law that is relied upon.  Did the Tribunal agree with these relevant case law?  Do they feel bound by it, that their decisions must comply and follow the case law established by higher courts of law, up to and including the Supreme Court of Canada, or can they safely ignore these cases, and strike out on their own path?  I believe the Tribunal should have commented on each case relied upon, saying how the Tribunal interprets that case, and how the Tribunal applies it to this case.  Note that I, as Appellant, was the only one to use and refer to any case law.  Perhaps that is why the Tribunal ignored the case law.
• Similar to the case law, I made a number of arguments and explanations to explain and justify my positions.  All or most of these were silently ignored by the Tribunal.  I wonder why?  I believe the Tribunal should have provided reasons why they ignored or disagreed with those arguments, or why they were insufficient to convince the Tribunal to adopt my position.
• The Tribunal is supposed to decide all the issues before it.  There were a number of issues and motions that I made that were not decided.  Some of those motions could have cured the alleged defects that the Tribunal complained about.  Rather than considering those motions, the Tribunal ignored them.  I want to know why those motions were not considered.
• How the punishment doesn't fit the alleged offense(s).  The Tribunal has used the legal equivalent to the nuclear bomb to swat a pesky fly.  The Tribunal said they feared that I would use this appeal as a toe-hold to attack the entire Supply Management system.  It seems I am punished for what I might do, rather than what I have actually done, or what I should have done in the past.  This is tantamount to thought police, or pre-crime punishment as in the movie Minority Report. The Tribunal says they are in control of their Tribunal.  Then let them control their process during the hearing of my appeal, so their fear isn't realized.  However, let the appeal proceed on the proper hearing about the illegal and unjust  stripping away of the rights and freedoms of Small Flockers by the out-of-control CFO.
• Reasonable apprehension of bias against one of the Tribunal's panel members, and the acquiescence or abdication or demurring of the other two panel members, instead of stepping in and helping prevent or correct these obvious biases and unfair actions against our appeal.
• Other issues

So what do you think happens next?  Will the Tribunal be able to self-correct its flawed processes?  Will we have to proceed to the second-last step in this tortuous path to justice?

Read our request for the Tribunal's re-consideration of our valid complaints against CFO and the #ChickenMafia here:

Request for Re-consideration 78.47 kB 14 pages  

For the record, here is our Blog posting on the Tribunal's decision where they refuse to hear our appeal

Case Dismissed: The Appeal Tribunal has Spoken

Request Tribunal's Reconsideration

I am planning to request the Tribunal to re-consider its decision to dismiss my appeal as frivolous, vexatious, and bad faith.

The Tribunal ruled on Sept. 24th, 2014 that my appeal for the rights and freedoms of Small Flockers would be summarily dismissed before any of the issues could come to trial (see Blog posting  Case Dismissed: The Appeal Tribunal has Spoken).

I have just finished the draft, and look forward to your feedback and suggestions to improve this draft before submission to the OMAFRA Appeals Tribunal.  Here is the draft:

Request for Re-Consideration  16 pages   49.8 kB

I have until close of business on Friday Oct. 24th to get it submitted, so we don't have much time.

I appreciate your effort to find the time to carefully read it and share your ideas.

Case Dismissed: The Appeal Tribunal has Spoken

The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture Appeal Tribunal has refused to hear Small Flockers' appeal of the Small Flock Exemption Regulation as it is judged to be "frivolous, vexatious, and made in bad faith."

The Tribunal has consistently complained about lack of powers and jurisdiction for finding liability against Chicken Farmers of Ontario, and similar issues that were requested as relief for Small Flockers.  In response to the Tribunal's alleged limitations, both Versions 3 and 4 of our appeal had those contentious issues removed.  For some unknown reason, the Tribunal got hung up on Version 2, and would consider neither Versions 3 nor 4. 

In addition, I supplied the Tribunal with over 23 different legal precedents that supported the contentious relief that I requested from the oppressive and unconstitutional parts of the Small Flock Regulation; including a number of Supreme Court rulings that directly supported our case.

The other Respondent parties refuted neither our legal arguments, nor the case law presented, nor offered case law in support of the Respondent's position.  In spite of that, the Tribunal is silent about all of the case law presented except one, and then decided against us in what appears to be a contradiction of the case law.

How that can occur is a mystery to me, but that's where we are at.

The Tribunal mentioned in their decision that there was significant animosity between Small Flockers and CFO.  It seems that the Tribunal felt that this was one more reason not to allow the appeal, for they discussed it in this decision, as well as the previous two decision; obviously sufficiently important to bear repeating three times.  Does the Tribunal expect that if litigants are not the best of friends, they shouldn't be allowed access to the Tribunal?  I find this very strange.

The Tribunal said that I acted in bad faith because I had a "personal political manifesto".  That was the accusation made against me by CFO, but I don't remember agreeing to that accusation, so it seems the Tribunal leaped to assume CFO's accusation was true; no evidence required.  It appears that the Tribunal wants and expects me to be a cold fish, a dis-interested party, with no stake in the outcome.  To me, that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.  If fact, Section 16.(4).(c) of MAFRAA says that one of the reasons that the Tribunal can dismiss an appeal is that "the appellant has not a sufficient interest in the subject-matter of the appeal".  So the Tribunal dismisses my appeal because I'm too interested, but can dismiss my appeal because I have insufficient interest.  Appellants must need to be like Goldilocks, not too much, not too little, just the right amount of interest.  Sounds pretty arbitrary to me.

I asked in writing before the Tribunal got started, and was assured by the Tribunal's Administrator that the Tribunal would provide full written reasons for their decision.   At the very start of the hearing, I asked again, and the Tribunal Panel themselves again reassured me that they would be providing full written reasons for their decision. In spite of these assurances, the Tribunal's decision is scant on the reasons for their decision.  My budding understanding of court proceedings, based on what I've been told and read, is that the court's decision should speak to all of the arguments presented by both sides, clearly state whether the Tribunal agrees or disagrees with those arguments, and the reasons why.  For virtually all of my reasons and arguments presented, it seems the Tribunal ignored them, like they were never made.  The Tribunal's decision mentions just one of my arguments, but even there, it offers no reasons why it was dismissed.  With incomplete reasons, it is difficult to impossible to appeal the Tribunal's decision, as there is nothing to appeal.  There is no record kept of what was said during the appeal, so we can't even go there to fill the holes in the Tribunal's records.  Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that I got what I was promised.  The Tribunal seems like it's trying to hide in a fog of ambiguity they have purposefully created.

To see for yourself, here is the Tribunal's decision to dismiss our appeal before it gets started.

So you can see for yourself what the Tribunal is referring to, here are my arguments for allowing our appeal to go forward:

Appellant's Answer to Tribunal's Allegation and Threat to Dismiss our Appeal 
10 pages, 171 kB, Adobe Acrobat X pdf file

Appellant's Submission Brief (case law, statutes, regulations, documents, and 375 signatures on Petitions requesting the Tribunal to allow appeal to proceed to full hearing), 27.35 MB, 1,085 pages, Adobe Acrobat X pdf file.  (It a BIG file, so it takes a few minutes to download.  Be patient)

Here is CFO's submission to Tribunal in response to my Answer

Unlike our answer, CFO presented no facts, no legal references, no case law that supports their position.  All CFO did was issue 5 pages of rhetoric.

It appears that CFO's rhetoric is pretty powerful stuff, as it trumps a number of Supreme Court of Canada cases that supported our position.

I understand that I can ask the Tribunal for re-consideration of their decision.  My estimate of success is I'd have better luck buying a 6-4-9 ticket.

I can also ask the Minister of Agriculture to intercede.  Assessment of success?  I have no idea.  What are your thoughts?

If neither of these work, I can ask the ON Superior Court for a Judicial Review.  However, that puts me at risk for having costs awarded against me, perhaps risking thousands of dollars to pay for CFO's lawyers if I lose. Pretty risky step.

What do you think Small Flockers should do?

Pregnant Pause

It has been a week since CFO submitted their response to my final attempt to rescue our chicken appeal.

The Tribunal still has not responded to the arguments submitted by the opposing sides.  What could that pregnant pause mean?

The Tribunal could have had a response within the hour after the closing of the time for submitting responses.  After all, how long does it take to type "Case dismissed!".

However, that summary dismissal has not occurred.  Obviously, the Tribunal needs a little bit more time than an hour to consider what has been submitted.

The CFO's 5 page submission takes about an hour to read a few times.  Not very deep, nor complex.  It wouldn't take more than a day to agree or disagree with CFO's submission, and adopt what they submitted.  At a week delay and counting, it likely isn't CFO's response that is delaying the issuing of the Tribunal's answer.

The Tribunal allowed us a maximum of 10 pages to convince them that the Tribunal has sufficient jurisdiction and powers to hear this appeal. Our 10 pages of legal arguments are designed to try and keep the appeal alive.  Those 10 pages are complex, filled with legal references and footnotes.  It is comprehensive, and has maximum possible density so as to fit everything into those 10 pages, the maximum allowed .  It is a significant task just to read those 10 pages.

In addition, our Submission Brief of 1,085 pages contains the full text of all the Court transcripts referenced and relied upon in our 10 page submission, plus our signed Petitions in support of our appeal.  That would take at least a week just to read.

Could it be the Appellant's arguments that are slowing down the Tribunal's response?

That doesn't necessarily mean that we are going to win this skirmish.  I think there is a 90% chance that our appeal gets dismissed no matter how strong our legal arguments may be.  However, our legal arguments are sufficiently strong and persuasive that it takes a significant effort to cast them aside and make it plausible.  That is why it's taking the Tribunal so long.  The Tribunal wants to appear to be fair and legally correct.

Whatever the true reasons for the pregnant pause, it appears that the Tribunal is reading and considering our arguments.  That's an important first step.  There is a slim chance that the Tribunal will be sufficiently persuaded so as to overcome 50 years of #ChickenMafia dogma, precedence, well-embedded habits, and political favoritism.

That won't be easy for the Tribunal to achieve, but it may be possible. Let us hope and pray together the Tribunal's Panel Members have the personal strength to do what is right.

CFO's Gorilla Dust

On the last available day, we finally have CFO’s reply to our appeal and the Tribunal’s threat to dismiss our appeal.

Our last ditch effort to save our appeal from CFO's fatal propaganda is described in Blog posting It Is Done

I was always told to first find the good in all things before criticizing, so that is where I will start.  CFO, to the best of my abilities to detect, has no spelling mistakes, and their sentence structure shows intelligence, education, and strong  rhetorical arguments.  It appears that CFO's lawyer did the best he could with the weak hand that he was given.  He was unable to present any evidence or case law in support of CFO's position; perhaps because there aren't any available.

On page 7 of the Tribunal's May 21, 2014 decision, the Tribunal said:

"Mr. Black's Amended Notice of Appeal is restricted to challenging CFO Regulation No. 2425-2013 and the 300 bird chicken exemption policy;"

Why then, is CFO repeatedly hammering away about Small Flockers' complaints against the Small Flock Regulation?  In our Revised Notice of Appeal, we complain that this Small Flock Regulation (the "Impugned Regulation") is:

• Unconstitutional;
• Ultra Vires the powers and authority delegated to CFO;
• Violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;
• Excessive, arbitrary, unjustifiable, draconian, and an abuse of powers; far beyond what is necessary and justifiable to achieve the stated Objectives of the Chicken Supply Management System;
• Not applicable to Northern Ontario, and other under-serviced or remote areas of Ontario.

If the Revised Notice of Appeal is to be limited to the impugned Small Flock Regulation, why does CFO complain that "...the small flock regulation continues to serve as the toe-hold for the advancement of Mr. Black's broader concerns and agenda."

In my Revised Notice of Appeal, I gave evidence on why my appeal of the Small Flock Regulation should be allowed.  CFO takes exception to me being allowed to present evidence against the Small Flock Regulation.

Apparently CFO feels I am only allowed to appeal if I don't present any evidence to support my case.  That would certainly be an interesting appeal process.

In the Tribunal's July 31st, 2014 decision, the Tribunal  invited me to convince them that they have the powers and jurisdiction for the relief I sought in my Revised Notice of Appeal:

"In addition, the Tribunal gives Mr. Black the opportunity to persuade it that it has the jurisdiction to grant the relief set out in section 11 (p. 96-97) of the RNOA."

In my arguments to support our appeal and prevent the dismissal without a hearing, I gave it my best shot to convince the Tribunal in 10 pages or less.  I also said that if I was not fully successful in my arguments to convince the Tribunal, I offered to withdraw all contentious points, defaulting to exactly what the Tribunal has already agreed to (ie. the Small Flock regulation, and the 300 bird limit).

Still, CFO is not satisfied.  CFO spends 5 pages complaining that I improperly persist in my claims, even though the Tribunal gave me the opportunity to make final convincing arguments on those points.

I found numerous previous cases decided by Ontario Superior Court, Court of Appeal, and Supreme Court of Canada that seemed exactly on point in support of my Notice of Appeal.  I understand that the typical arguments against previous case law are:

• Try showing that I've misinterpreted what my case law is saying, or how it should be applied;
• Try finding other case law that supersedes or overrules my case law;

CFO does none of this.  CFO presents mere rhetoric against the claims made, but makes no attempt to diminish the legal precedents I presented.  Perhaps that's because the Supreme Court of Canada cases are the law of the land, and cannot be attacked in any reasonable way.

Perhaps CFO has no case, and they know it.  Perhaps CFO is like a scared gorilla, who throws dust in the air as a smoke screen so as to distract attention, blind the opponent, or cover their retreat without being seen.  The best that CFO can come up with is gorilla dust.

We will soon see how far the Tribunal is willing to stretch out their neck in favor of CFO's position.

It is Done

It is done.  The Tribunal's has accused our chicken appeal as frivolous, vexatious, and done in bad faith.

The answer to those allegations was made late last night, so it's delivery is effective as of today 2014/08/14, one day before the Tribunal's deadline.

Appellant's Answer to Tribunal's Allegation and Threat to Dismiss our Appeal 
10 pages, 171 kB, Adobe Acrobat X pdf file

Appellant's Submission Brief (case law, statutes, regulations, documents, and 375 signatures on Petitions requesting the Tribunal to allow appeal to proceed to full hearing), 27.35 MB, 1,085 pages, Adobe Acrobat X pdf file.  (It a BIG file, so it takes a few minutes to download.  Be patient)

Now the other parties have 10 days to respond with their view of the world.  That window closes on Sunday Aug. 24th, so they will have till Monday Aug. 25th at 4:00 PM to submit their response.  After that, the Tribunal will decide, and issue its written decision in 30 days or less.

Both the Federal and Provincial governments have a right to input their position to the Tribunal.  Will they sit on the sidelines in full neutrality, choosing to let David and Goliath battle to the death?  Or, will these powerful past allies of Chicken Farmers of Ontario ("CFO") again pick up the proxy sword and do as CFO's lobbyists instruct the government to do, come to the aid of CFO, the Frankenstein creation and favorite son of the governments?  A son only its Mother could love.

Sometimes strange, unexpected things happen.  Perhaps this is one of those cases.

I was asked a question by someone who has been in a ringside seat for these Chicken Wars.  Was I a lawyer in my former life?

I replied "No".  I explained that I have a "dangerous" ability to learn quickly, and to finish what I started.

One of the mistakes I made was in ever going down this road in the first place.  What was I thinking!  My family, friends, & neighbours regularly shake their heads in disbelief at what I have been going through for the last 3 years to bring these issues to the forefront, seeking government's attention and change for the better.

However, I think it unreasonable to expect this level of dedication that has been demanded of me so as to improve this critical food system for Canadians.  No wonder the average citizen never considers attempting what I have attempted.  Clearly this system, and all other governmental systems need to be much more responsive to the needs of the people.

As President Kennedy said:

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."


(JFK's "Address on the First Anniversary of the Alliance for Progress," White House reception for diplomatic corp of the Latin American republics, March 13, 1962. Public Papers of the Presidents – John F. Kennedy (1962), p. 223)

Perhaps we need to solve the government's problem with accountability & responsiveness before we can use that more responsive government to solve the citizen's growing list of other issues.

Perhaps I erred by trying to fix the wrong problem.

I get Knocked Down, but I get up Again...

*****
2014/08/11 8:13 PM addendum

This posting's Rev.  5 draft version is obsolete, replaced by Rev. 8 version available here:

Response Draft #8 to Notice to Dismiss Appeal

*****
Original Posting

I get Knocked Down, but I get up Again.  You're never gonna keep me down.  The new theme song for Small Flockers, and our ongoing battle with Chicken Farmers of Ontario ("CFO").



The Tribunal has decided, or CFO convinced them, that my appeal of the small flock regulation is not suitable.  They allege that:

• I have failed to file an appeal that meets their minimum standards
• My appeal is frivolous, vexatious, or made in bad faith. 
• They have no powers or jurisdiction to hear any of my complaints.

The Tribunal said they would give me one last chance, an opportunity to submit up to 10 pages to convince them that none of these allegations are true.  To make all of this "legal", they sent me a Notice Of Intention To Refuse To Hear Appeal.

Now, I have 15 days to respond before they pull the trigger and my appeal is summarily executed.

I have drafted a Small Flocker response, Rev. 5.  I am not totally happy with what it says right now, so further improvements are needed.  I have used up every available square millimeter of space, so if something is missing, something else will have to be deleted.

I hope you will give it a read, and offer some of your life experience as suggestions to improve.

The deadline for filing an answer is 4:00 PM on Friday Aug. 15, 2014.  Your suggestions need to be submitted by the 14th so I have time to review them, and get them entered into the draft.

Even though the blindfold is in place, our hands are tied behind our back, and we are up against a bullet riddled wall, it doesn't necessarily mean it's time to panic.

Rev. Hugh MacDonald (a friend of mine and former Pastor) told me that back in the 1980's, he was involved in a protest against indiscriminant pesticide spraying to control the spruce budworm in Nova Scotia.  An informal group of citizens tried complaining to the government, but the government wouldn't listen, so they took the government to court.  The legal challenge was lead (or assisted) by Elizabeth May, law student and daughter of one of the citizen leaders.  That group of citizens lost in Court, but that loss, and the publicity gained, helped them win in the court of public opinion.  Without the loss of the court battle, and its focusing of public attention, they might never have won the war against indiscriminate pesticide spraying.

Perhaps that battle helped focus the life of Elizabeth May, who is now the Party Leader of the Green Party of Canada, and a Member of Parliament.  

I wonder if Small Flockers are destined to take the same (or a similar) path through history?

The Empire Strikes Back

The revised Notice of Appeal was published on the 17th of July, 2014 (see Blog posting Appeal #2 Submitted).  The Empire struck back on the 21st, just 4 days later.

Mr. D. Vader, consulting attorney for Chicken Farmers of Ontario

The last time Chicken Farmers of Ontario ("CFO") complained about my appeal, they were successful in limiting my appeal to just CFO's Small Flock Regulation.

The Empire (a.k.a  #ChickenMafia) didn't want to discuss the rights and freedoms of small flockers, the affordability of chicken, the superbugs and other noxious substances on the chicken produced by the #ChickenMafia, nor anything else.

In CFO's letter to the Tribunal, Darth Vader Geoffrey Spur complained about the revised appeal, and about the evidence presented in support of raising the small flock exemption from 300 to 2,000 birds.

It isn't clear to me what CFO thinks would be a reasonable and acceptable appeal.  CFO seems to want the appeal to be limited to "Please raise the limit from 300 to 2,000", with no reasons in support of this request  to be offered.

While CFO took 4 days to respond, I burned the midnight oil and got a Small Flocker response to CFO's complaint out the next day.

It will be interesting to see the Tribunal's response to these renewed complaints by CFO.

I have two burning questions:

1. When, if ever, do we get to the hearing of the appeal?
    
2. Luke Skywalker was shocked when he found out the truth about Darth Vader, so should I start to worry too about "Who's your Daddy?"

Appeal #2 Submitted

I finally finished drafting my Notice of Appeal #2, or more correctly, it finished me.  Now the ball is in the court of Chicken Farmers of Ontario, and the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture Appeals Tribunal.

The Tribunal said the only issue I was allowed to bring up was the small flock regulation.  Today, the average small flock in Ontario is just 57 birds.  That 57 birds will feed one family for a year.  Few small flockers bother growing for their neighbours anymore.  Too many regulations, and at 300 birds maximum, it isn't worth the effort to try and run it as a business for most sane people.

This appeal is about freedom for small flockers.  We want our freedom from CFO, but will settle for 2,000 birds per year limit.

Here are the files:

Notice of Appeal      98 pages, 816 kB, Adobe Acrobat X pdf

Affidavit of Glenn Black      5 pages, 592 kB, Adobe Acrobat X pdf

Notice of Constitutional Questions      6 pages, 26 kB, Adobe Acrobat X pdf

I had 60 days to re-draft all of this.  I invested the first bit of that time to decompress, assess if I was ready to try again, and get some personal stuff done that had been abandoned in favor of this project.

I had limited time, knowledge, and budget, so others may have been able to have done a better job, but I tried my best.  Now we have to wait to see what happens next.

Thanks to all of you that reviewed the previous drafts, and made suggestions to help.  I even received a few links for case law that were included in the final version.

Have a tall cold one on me.  I know I will!

Ontario Small Flock Chicken Appeal Re-launched

The decision has been made.  I will be re-filing my appeal of CFO's small flock regulation to the Ministry of Agriculture Appeals Tribunal.

When I received the ruling from the Tribunal on my appeal, I immediately sent a copy of the ruling to the various agriculture publications and reporters.  Among others, Susan Mann of Better Farming did an interview of me, and wrote an article on the appeal and the Tribunal's decision.

Since that time, there has been a lively debate on BF's website about the issues; making it the most lively issue on BF's website.

That prompted me to make the following posting on BF today, announcing my decision:

Eighteen days have passed since BF's posted this article on May 22, 2014.  In that time interval, a total of 81 comments have been made by numerous people.

My original appeal to the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture Appeals Tribunal presented evidence on all of the wrongful acts of Chicken Farmers of Ontario ("CFO") and the chicken Supply Management system overall.  While that comprehensive appeal was rejected by the Tribunal, the Tribunal invited me to re-file my appeal on the limited grounds of the 300 bird small flock exemption Regulation.

I have monitored all the comments made here, and attempted to respond, question, or defend the principles behind the appeal I filed with the Tribunal, complaining against the alleged illegal, negligent, and mis-guided actions of Chicken Farmers of Ontario ("CFO").

After the ruling of the Tribunal was released, I asked for opinions on what should be done next (if anything).  I received nothing but encouragement to continue.  In spite of this encouragement, I do not look forward to another appeal, for I see it as sticking my head into the gaping jaws of a hungry lion.

Some comments made here were off topic, but most expressing worthy opinions on this important issue.

The debates held here have assisted me in considering and preparing the necessary arguments and reasons as to whether a renewed appeal should be made.

In my opinion, there have been no arguments presented here that have persuaded me to change or abandon my principles and logic behind the original appeal.

I thank everybody for your input, and for providing me the ability to defend, practice, and hone my skills and persuasive arguments.

In spite of my reluctance and reservations, I believe that re-filing my appeal must be done for the greater good of all.

I therefore hereby announce that I will be re-filing my appeal within the 60 days allowed by the Tribunal.  I have already started re-drafting the Notice of Appeal this weekend.  When the draft is ready, I will post it on SFPFC's Blog for review and comments before the final version is submitted to the Tribunal.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada ("SFPFC")

Decision Time

The Tribunal has made its decision on our Appeal.  Now it is time for Small Flockers and their friends to make our decision.

The Tribunal's decision on CFO's Motion to Dismiss our appeal is available here: Tribunal's Decision.

Small Flockers need to decide if we abandon our fight for freedom and affordable food, or continue our fight for truth, justice, and pragmatic solutions.

I just sent an email to all members of Small Flockers, and a few key agriculture media contacts.  That emailed letter is reproduced here.

As requested in this letter, if you have any feedback, I'd like to receive it too. Call, email, or post your comments below, whether pro or con.

* * *
Begin Email Letter

To:    Members of Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada
c.c.   Agriculture Media

As a member, supporter, or follower of Small Flocker Poultry Farmers of Canada, you need to know that we are at an important decision point for Small Flockers, and I seek your advice.

Attached, you will find the Tribunal's decision on my appeal, where I was acting as proxy for all other Small Flockers in Ontario, and the rest of Canada.

The Appeals Tribunal has rejected all of our issues raised, except for one:  the 300 birds/yr grow limit imposed on Small Flockers by CFO (Chicken Farmers of Ontario), and our request to have the limit raised to 2,000 birds per year, in line with most other Provinces.

The Tribunal has invited me to file an amended Notice of Appeal on this one issue.  I need to decide if I should give up now, or file the abridged appeal.

In my mind, the #1 issue was, and remains, whether CFO  is a power unto themselves.  CFO seems to feel they can do as they please with the government powers delegated & vested in them, to feather their own nest at the expense of everybody else in Ontario.  If we solve this one issue about CFO's role, most or all other issues in chicken supply management will automatically (more or less) solve themselves.  This is why safe, affordable food for all Ontario families is the second most important issue that we hoped to address in this appeal.

Today, Health Canada reports that 7.6% of Canadian families can't afford the food they need to feed themselves.  In our have-not Province of Ontario, food insecurity is 11% worse than the Canadian average.  Will this be an election issue?  Is there any hope of solving or improving this issue if we abandon our appeal at this point in time?

If I file the amended appeal, the Tribunal may have to rule on that central core issue (ie. Does CFO have a duty to do what is in the best interest of the public?), but the Tribunal could also refuse again to address that important issue, deciding the 300 vs. 2,000 bird limit question based on other facts.  I believe we can show on the balance of probabilities that strengthening and expanding small flockers would be in the public's best interest, and would be more fair to small flockers.  CFO has again stated that the 300 bird limit was not set, and has no need to be set at a level that is commercially viable (ie. it is not necessary that a small flocker has a reasonable expectation of making a profit).

I expect that if I go forward, most or all of the cost, time, and effort will likely have to come from me personally.  For that reason, I seek your advice, but reserve the final decision to me alone.  In other words, I reserve the right to accept or reject the advice of the majority of Small Flock members, and each individual.  However, I would greatly appreciate receiving your advice, and more important yet, the REASONS behind your advice.

There is no guarantee that we will win or achieve anything if I do all the work of re-filing a new, revised version of an appeal, and go back to the Tribunal again.

I suggest that CFO would be very glad to sweep all of this under the carpet.  By making this appeal a tough and drawn out process, CFO likely hopes to wear us down, so that all sane people give up before getting anywhere close to the finish line.  In that way, CFO wins by default, and the status quo continues in CFO's advantage.  There is no guarantee that CFO won't file another Motion to Dismiss to my revised Notice of Appeal.

Personally, all or most of my issues have been swept aside; gone, deemed outside of the chosen jurisdiction of Tribunal by this decision.

On the other hand, it is usual for Courts and Tribunals to decide or comment on only the minimum number of issues necessary to make the decision at hand.  The Tribunal was asked to dismiss or contain the issues in the appeal.  That is the decision that they have made.

If we go forward by filing the amended Notice of Appeal, the Tribunal may have to decide on some of these other collateral issues too.  That would be the best possible outcome, where some or all of these other important issues get decided by the Tribunal as collateral benefits that come with the Tribunal's future decision about the 300 vs. 2000 bird limit.  Perhaps we can enter by the back door after having been refused entrance by the front door.

The Tribunal suggest I should ask for a Public Inquiry on all of the issues raised. What's the chances of getting the Fed or Prov. government to hold a public inquiry?  What a joke.  Snowball's chance in Hell, in my opinion.  Perhaps I am wrong on this, but I am not prepared to spend 1 second of effort on that impossible dream.

As for me personally, my barn can only grow 100 meat birds at a time.  At a max. of 6 grow sessions per year (think of the energy bill in -40 deg. C weather), I can do a max of 600 birds per year if I don't build a new barn.  If I restrict my growing to those that I can do economically, I can grow 4 sessions per year @ 100 birds per session= 400 birds per year.  There isn't much difference between 300 (current CFO limit by Ontario Regulation) vs 400 birds per year limit (the physical restraint of my barn).  I can't justify all the effort to fight this David Vs. Goliath battle for 100 more chickens per year that I would grow personally.  CFO's data says that 50% of small flockers have 60 birds or less at present.  It would appear that most Small Flockers in Ontario are similar to me at present.

There is the possibility that after 10 or 20 years with the 2,000 bird limit, more and more Small Flockers will start growing more chicken because it has become economically feasible to do so.  That is the hope, but mostly speculation whether it would actually occur.  Nobody knows for sure.

The current 300 birds/yr. limit allows one farmer to produce enough chicken to feed 5.5 families for a year.

Alternatively, there are about 100 families in my small village.  If I focus on feeding them, that is about 250 people.  Assuming 38 kg of chicken consumed per person per year, that is a total of 9,500 kg per year of chicken required.  At 2 kg per eviscerated chicken, that is 4,750 birds per year.  With a 2,000 bird limit, I would be able to feed about 42% of my remote village for their annual chicken consumption.  That would seem to be reasonable in my particular case.  Perhaps there are many Small Flockers who have a similar duty or opportunity so as to achieve safe, nutritious, locally produced chicken for their community.  Perhaps this is sufficient reason to continue the fight.

On the other hand, this revised grow limit [of] 2,000 birds per year might allow for the creation of mid-sized regional chicken producers, possibly adding a middle tier into the current 2 tier system (ie. currently just quota farmers and small flock farmers).

I'd be doing all the work for a very few individuals who would benefit from being able to become a regional chicken producer.  In the future, will these regional producers align themselves with the small flockers and the consumers, or will they choose to align themselves with the big boys (ie. the millionaire quota chicken farmers and producers) so that they get free crumbs from the master's table?  I am not highly motivated to help splinter and add to the opposition forces (ie. possibly similar to chopping a star fish in half so as to get rid of them, but you end up with twice as many star fishes, as each piece re-grows into a whole star fish). On the positive side, perhaps this new middle tier of chicken producers will help apprentice & ease in new chicken farmers to our industry, rather than the current trans-Atlantic jump that is required from small flock (easy for everybody to do) to full minimum quota size (ie. a multi-million dollar operation).  Therefore a 3-tier system might be good for Ontario in the long run.

If I stop now, I will have failed in my purpose, as Jim Rohnman said yesterday in his Blog   http://agri007.blogspot.ca/2014/05/black-loses-appeal.html 

Perhaps I have poisoned the well, and it is better if I toss the ball into the air, yell "Free Throw", and hope somebody else jumps up, grabs the ball, and runs with it.

I don't like the thought of being a quitter, nor of being a failure, nor admitting to have wasted the huge effort I expended over the last 3 years on these issues.  However, it would be an even greater disaster to ignore this setback, then blunder on to an even greater waste of time and effort, or the further polarization and entrenchment between the CFO and Small Flocker factions.

If I go forward, I have little to no personal skin in the game.  It will be mainly "for the good of all Ontario" and the new regional chicken producers who would gain from my efforts if I choose to proceed.  Perhaps in the long term there might be some advantages to what we have done so far; it's hard to know.

It's a tough decision.  That's why I need your advice.  Please call or email me with your thoughts; pro or con.


Yours truly,

Glenn

--
Glenn Black
President
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada
c/o 576 Firehall Rd. P.O. Box 101
Providence Bay ON   P0P 1T0
Phone (705)-377-4039
cdn.small.flockers@gmail.com
Blog: http://canadiansmallflockers.blogspot.ca/

Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to communicate, discuss, and advocate for the civil rights and important role that small flock poultry farmers can play (and should play) in Canadian Society.

* * *
End Email Letter


If you have any feedback, I'd like to receive it too. Call, email, or post your comments below, whether pro or con.

Trying for Tribunal

I have been somewhat busy with Spring on the farm, and preparing for the Tribunal.

Unfortunately, there hasn't been much time left over for posting on this Blog.

The case law research necessary to keep our Appeal alive takes up a considerable amount of time, especially when I'm an pure amateur.

So far, I have 11 pages of notes for responding to CFO's Motion to dismiss our appeal.  Those note may be all garbage, or may keep us alive; it's hard to know if I'm on the right track.

I must file our response by May 2nd, so I have just 7 days left.  An email to me that includes your name and address will be sufficient; a signed letter with your name and address is even better.

I have had some interesting conversations in the last few days that will hopefully help if we make it past this Motion to Dismiss that has been filed by CFO.

There is a lot at stake.  I'm feeling the pressure.  I'm still hoping that you will send me an email or letter that I can use to support our cause by including it in our response to CFO.

Tell me why it's important to you that this Tribunal hearing proceeds.  The main issues at stake are:

• CFO's 300 bird limit for Small Flockers
• Openness, transparency, & accountability of CFO and OFPMC
• Right of Small Flockers to have a say in CFO and the rules CFO imposes on small flockers
• Locally produced, safe, nutritious, & affordable chicken for all
• Other?

If your info and opinion are to be included, plan on sending it to me before the end of April. 

CFO's Motion to Dismiss Small Flocker's Appeal

Small Flockers want the abuse and oppression against us to stop.  CFO thinks everything is perfect just the way it is.  That's why CFO is fighting to stop our appeal to Ontario's Ministry of Agriculture Tribunal.

Here is a copy of CFO's Motion to Dismiss, attempting to blow our appeal out of the water, preventing the public hearing of these important issues.

Guess why CFO wants to avoid the OMAF Tribunal, and keep everything Top Secret?

Is CFO embarrassed by their actions and inactions against Small Flockers?

To survive CFO's attack through this Motion to Dismiss, I will need lots of help.

• Send me an email of support, requesting that the Tribunal allow the appeal to happen.  Be sure to include your name, City, and Province of residence.
  
• We will need donations to pay for the cost of printing and couriering our answer to CFO's Motion

• We need letters of support from the general public, farmers, and all professionals to tell the Tribunal why the issues raised by Small Flockers are important to you and the rest of Canada, and that justice can only be done by hearing of Small Flocker's appeal by the Tribunal.

The ball is in your court.

I will proceed ahead to the Motion Hearing, even if I am the only one there on our side.

Whether this plea for relief of the injustice and oppression, and violation of Small Flockers rights goes any further after that, will in part depend on what you and all others do in the next few weeks to help our cause.

Now is the time to act!

Rising Army of Small Flockers

Data squeezed out of the super secret CFO via CFO's Motion
to Dismiss hearing at OMAF Tribunal

Remember Edward Snowden and his release of Top Secret NSA info?

Today I feel like I've done the same to Chicken Farmers of Ontario.

At right is Top Secret info divulged by CFO in their Motion filed with OMAF's Tribunal.

I've previously worked with multi-nationals who treated everything as Top Secret so as to protect their technologies and competitive advantage.

To me, it seems CFO takes "Top Secret for Everything" way beyond even those corporation's level of arrogance, xenophobia, and paranoia.

I'm not sure why CFO released this info, but they did, so here it is for all the world to see.

It appears that Ontario's Small Flockers has grown way past our last reported strength of 13,000 quota-exempt chicken farmers.

The amalgamation and concentration of ownership of quota
is reducing the number of quota-bearing chicken farmers

There are now 15,129 Small Flockers in Ontario, increasing at an average rate of 11.6% per year for the last 4 years.

How does that compare to CFO's millionaire quota-based chicken farmers?  The number of members in CFO's exclusive club have been dropping since 2002.

I wonder why?

Is this resistance of Small Flockers legitimate complaints jealousy, fear, or spite by CFO and its dwindling members?

P.S.   Here is a copy of CFO's Motion to Dismiss, attempting to blow our appeal out of the water, preventing the public hearing of these important issues.

Guess why CFO wants to avoid the OMAF Tribunal, and keep everything Top Secret?

Tribunal Time

It's off to the Tribunal we go!

Yesterday, I received the Tribunal's acknowledgement of receipt of our Notice of Appeal from the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food Appeal Tribunal. I agreed to all of their proposed dates, but somehow, the Tribunal scheduled us to different dates.  The Motion Hearing is scheduled at Tribunal's offices at 1 Stone Road West, Guelph, Ontario Canada (45 minutes from Toronto ON Canada), beginning at 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday May 14, 2014.

This motion is likely a preliminary ploy by Chicken Farmers of Ontario ("CFO") to stop the appeal before it gets started.

As CFO sees it, I have no rights whatsoever, and they are the mighty and powerful CFO, and don't appreciate me questioning their actions and authority.

If you don't mark this date on your calendar and show up at the appointed time, I will likely be there all by myself, staring into the hungry, snarling, foaming mouths of CFO's lawyers; from 1 to 6 Toronto lawyers who will attempt to rip me apart and feed me to their young; all while being paid $500 per hour for each of these legal wolf-mercenaries.

Bring popcorn and your smart phone for live video opportunities.  This will likely be interesting.

This hearing, and if we ever get to the Tribunal, could cost up to $3,000 per hour that CFO has to pay their lawyers.  Of course, CFO will fund the protection of their monopoly by raising CFO chicken levies that are charged to quota-based chicken farmers.  Ontario's factory chicken farmers who pay those levies will, in turn, be reimbursed by raising the farm gate chicken prices that the farmers enjoy.  Chicken processors will be forced to pay these higher farm gate chicken prices, so the retail price of chicken will eventually be raised accordingly.

So again, the consumer gets shafted by trying to seek an end to the previous and ongoing shafting of consumers.

My apologies to all Canadians for increasing your pain through higher chicken prices in the short term.  Hopefully, there is a rainbow and pot of gold that will eventually be found through this appeal process.

What will we be discussing at this motion hearing?  CFO likely feels I have no right to appeal, the Tribunal has no authority to hear my complaints, and I have been scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, trivial, my appeal has no merit, it's an abuse of the judicial process, moot, bad faith, have an improper purpose, or discloses no reasonable cause of action, and therefore I lose any right to appeal.

As to the Tribunal appeal itself, there is a short and long version available.  Take your pick:

The Long Version:  The Gory Details of my Appeal

Notice of Appeal   272 pages, Adobe Acrobat pdf, 5.63 MB

The Short Version:   7 Questions

Suggested Questions for the OMAF Tribunal to Answer

Glenn Black
vs.
Chicken Farmers of Ontario (“CFO”) &
Ontario’s Farm Products Marketing Commission (“OFPMC”)

1. Currently, small flock (ie. non-quota) chicken farmers are subject to government authority and powers that have been delegated to, or vested in Chicken Farmers of Ontario (“CFO”). Since these delegated and vested powers imposed on Small Flockers originated from the governments of a free and democratic country, does the Appellant and other Small Flockers have the legal right to membership in CFO, to attend CFO meetings, to receive CFO information, to run for a CFO elected office, and vote in CFO elections so as to have democratic representation at the CFO Board?


2. If the answer to Q #1 is no, then should Small Flockers be exempt from the By-laws, rules, policies, procedures, powers, authority, rulings, invasion of privacy, and threat of enforcement currently planned and practiced by CFO?


3. Are there other responsibilities, duties, and constraints owed by the Defendants (ie. both CFO and OFPMC) for the benefit of the Appellant or others, that irrevocably flow with the government powers that are delegated and vested in the Defendants, above and beyond those expressly enumerated in the Farm Products Marketing Act and Regulations?


4. Under Section 1.01 of the Federal-Provincial Agreement-Chicken 2001, all members of the chicken Supply Management system agreed “to work in the balanced interest of producers, industry stakeholders and consumers”. Have the Defendants breached these duties under this agreement? If yes, does the Appellant, Small Flockers, the consumer, and/or the general public have vested third party rights, either under this agreement or otherwise, that they can use to seek legal redress from the Defendants?


5. Do the Defendants have a duty to be open, transparent, accountable, prudent, and reasonable; and to consider, accommodate, and be responsive to the rights, needs, expectations, complaints, and suggestions from:   (a) the Defendant’s respective stakeholders?   (b) The Appellant?   (c) Small Flockers?   (d) the consumer? and (e) the general public?


6. Is there sufficient objective, unbiased evidence to conclude that the Defendants have fully, faithfully, consistently, effectively, and efficiently:   (a) developed plans;   (b) avoided risks;   (c) implemented their express and implied duties in a timely and good faith manner for the greater good of the consumer, the general public and the Defendant’s respective stakeholders;   (d) periodically assessed their own performance, promptly took corrective action as needed, and continuously improved their performance?


7. If the answer to Q #6 is no, what duties do the Defendants have to assess their past performance, identify the cause of their inadequate past performance, determine the optimum solutions, take immediate corrective actions, verify and validate that their remedial actions are fully implemented and effective, and ensure their prior poor conduct (as well as all similar potentials) are avoided forevermore?

SFPFC's Ball is in Tribunal's Court

The dirty deed is done!  After almost a year in preparing our case, the Notice of Appeal has been filed with the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture Tribunal.

I previously posted about our draft Notice of Appeal (see SFPFC's Appeal at the OMAF Tribunal ), and requested suggestions to further improve it.

As usual, sober second thought, eagle eyes and dedication spotted a few mistakes in the draft versions, and raised some additional ideas for putting a few more nails into CFO's coffin.  This process added 14 additional pages to our docket for submission.  I'm sure we could have continued that improvement process for 5 to 7 more rounds, but our time was limited to get in under the 1 year deadline.

Final Version:  SFPFC's Notice of Appeal to OMAF Tribunal, 272 pages, 4.73 MB

The Tribunal is created and controlled under Section 16 of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act.  The Tribunal thereby created is authorized and has all the necessary powers under Ontario's Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

Here is the email transmitting and submitting our Notice of Appeal

As stated in the email, I have been informed that there are a number of other interested parties who likely will want to be added as parties to this appeal, intervenors, or attend the hearing, so I have requested that the hearings be held in or near Guelph ON with a hearing room suitable for 200 people.

I assume that CFO will create a huge financial war chest to fund their attack.  According to CFO's 2013 financial statements on page 28, CFO has  $8.8 Million is assets, and a net worth of $6.73 million.  By borrowing from banks or passing an emergency levy to all #ChickenMafia members and friends, they can get a lot more money to fight for a very long time, using the most expensive mercenaries money can buy.

SFPFC has its legal defense fund too.  We have been selling memberships, cutting expenses to the bone to save our pennies, cashing in aluminum cans and glass bottles, etc..  We are proud to announce that we have amassed a grand total of $26.00 ready to apply to financing this important issue.  As you can see, this is truly a David vs. Goliath battle.  Additional donations to SFPFC's legal defense fund can be made if you are so inclined.

If we can achieve more than $100.00 it might be worth opening a SFPFC bank account, rather than using the recycled coffee can sitting on the kitchen counter. 

Typically, these David vs. Goliath legal battles require an almost endless series of roadblocks that will be erected by Goliath (ie. CFO and the #ChickenMafia), and we will be required to provide strict proof and justification of every single point whined about.

CFO has already stated that they plan to contest our right to request a Tribunal hearing, as they see us as frivolous, vexatious, acting in bad faith, raising trivial matters of no importance, and that we have no right or legally justified interest in the matters complained about.  They also mentioned something about my Mom wearing army boot.

If CFO can prove any of those allegations against SFPFC, then the hearing will be over before it starts.

It may go as far as CFO denying that Planet Earth exists, as you can't have a Tribunal hearing if Planet Earth cannot be proven to exist.  Similarly, they may try to deny the existence of such things as chickens, me as a person, SFPFC, and all similar arguments that could possible delay or deny existence or responsibility for their actions.

That system of delay tactics may take a while to get through, including a multitude of preliminary motions, arguments against disclosing documents to us, and many other legal maneuvers; all before we can get to the hearing proper.

While it may seem endless at the time, the delaying tactics by CFO and the #ChickenMafia will eventually come to an end.

While all of the above is likely their plan, we may be pleasantly surprised by their willingness to get right to the meat of the matters.  We'll have to wait and see.

Hopefully, the Tribunal is well aware of their tricks, and won't tolerate them for long.

As soon as I know the date for the hearing, I'll let you know.

In the interim, please pass the word to everyone who might be interested.  Share with them your reasons for being interested.  Help them to understand what is at stake, and what the benefits might be from a positive ruling at this appeal.  We seek justice for small flockers, and to make a better world for all residents of Ontario.

Plan on coming to the hearing.  Bring your popcorn.  It should be an interesting show.

SFPFC's Appeal at the OMAF Tribunal

Our application for appeal at the OMAF Tribunal is finally ready.  Give it a read

Draft #1 of SFPFC's Notice of Appeal to OMAF Tribunal, 272 pages, 4.73 MB

Obsolete:  Draft #0 (original) of SFPFC's Statement of Claim for Appeal to OMAF Tribunal,
                 258 pages, 4.31 MB

If you're not sure what this is all about, read the history here:

March 26, 2013  CFO Chickens Out, Denies Hearing

 June 6, 2013  Off to the Tribunal we Go!

June 10, 2013  Getting Ready: OMAF Tribunal Appeal

Dec. 11, 2013   Is it Tribunal Time?

I'd appreciate brave people stepping forward and giving it a read.  Any errors, suggestions, advice, or other assistance you can offer would be most appreciated.

Please keep us in mind for any donation towards our Legal Defense Fund would be most appreciated.  We cannot yet afford the postage to mail the claim to the Tribunal.  We only have 2 weeks left before our 1 year deadline expires.

 

 

Is it Tribunal Time?

I think it's time to go to the Tribunal for our complaint against Chicken Farmers of Ontario.

It was June 10, 2013 that I posted about our green light to proceed to the Tribunal (see Getting Ready: OMAF Tribunal Appeal).

Small Flockers believe that CFO has been mis-directed, incompetent, negligent, exceeded its authority, acted in bad faith, colluded, in conflict of interest, and deserving of a lump of coal from Santa Claus.

I have been slowly collecting the necessary points for our claims, evidence, and case law.  It is intended that most, if not all, of the 166 postings on this Blog will be included in our filings with the Tribunal as evidence in the appeal.  It is intended for us to request written answers from CFO for all of the issues that we have covered here.  During the hearing, it is assumed that CFO personnel will be available to defend their written answers and reply to all of the issues that we have raised on this Blog.

In Figure 1 is a map of the Supply Management system for chicken in Ontario.  We have used this as one of the tools to help build our case for the Tribunal.  Complicated, eh?  The more complicated it is, the more the eyeballs of citizens glaze over, and the #ChickenMafia is left alone to do as it pleases.  It a very standard ploy in systemic oppression.

Based on this map, I have most areas covered in my investigations and analysis of Supply Management for chicken in Ontario, and the rest of Canada.

Figure 1:  Map of the Supply Management Bureaucracy for Ontario

It should be an interesting Tribunal hearing.  I wonder how far the Commissioners will allow me to proceed?

No matter how they decide, if we are given a fair, just, and impartial hearing, and we get to present all of our evidence, and ask all of our questions, then we have done the best we can.

One thing that we didn't receive was a Whistleblower Insider from the #ChickenMafia.  I would have hoped that one of 1,114 members of the #ChickenMafia might have stepped forward, unable to stomach any more of the wrong-headed nonsense of CFO and Supply Management.

Nobody stepped forward.  What could that mean?

I think this Blog has repeatedly proven that there are significant problems in paradise.

Therefore, I can only assume that all the members of the #ChickenMafia are experiencing one or more of the following:

1. They are brain dead, as all thinking is done for them by the CFO Board;
2. Too busy with their selfish endeavors to concern themselves with the consequences they create for others;
3. Frozen in fear at what would be done to them if they broke rank and became a Whistleblower;
4. Apathetic and defeated blobs of primordial ooze that has insufficient backbone to oppose anybody, least of all fellow members of the #ChickenMafia, nor the all powerful CFO;
5. Up to their eyeballs in debt and other consequences, hoping that the whole system hangs together so they can continue to exist, rather than be swept away in the tide of change that they fear may soon arrive.

If a #ChickenMafia Whistleblower wants to step forward with some insider info, we're all ears.  You will be respected for your difficult decision, and your confidentiality will be protected.  Even if you just wanted to talk, or wanted to find out some info about Small Flockers, give us a call, or send us an email.  We have few secrets.  I would enjoy speaking with you.

If there is a lawyer, paralegal, or other talented person who is willing to assist our cause and the Tribunal, now is a great time to step forward.  You can volunteer anything from 15 minutes of your time, money, or suggestions.  We take anything, and will recognize and appreciate everything.

Getting Ready: OMAF Tribunal Appeal

Now that Ontario's FPMC (Farm Products Marketing Commission) has refused to intercede on the behalf of Small Flockers against Chicken Farmers of Ontario ("CFO"), our next course of action is to Ontario Ministry of Agriculture Appeals Tribunal ("OMAF Tribunal").

I sent an email to the Tribunal, asking a number of questions about this important next step.

I got a very nice response from them, very helpful, they answered each question in a straight forward manner.  I was impressed.  Well done to OMAF's Gloria Marco-borys and/or her team!

If the Tribunal operates as well as this initial response, there is hope for us yet.

My questions and OMAF's answers are here.

CFO Chickens Out, Denies Hearing

CFO has decided that running away is better than facing the issues head on.  On March 21, 2013 Chicken Farmers of Ontario issued me a letter stating that the CFO Board had decided to not hear my complaint against CFO and the chicken supply management system.  See Hearing Denied

This clears my way forward to seek the intervention of the FPMC (Farm Products Marketing Commission, CFO's boss), or the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal ("Tribunal").

CFO has reserved the right to request that the Tribunal refuse to hear my complaint, because they feel my complaint is trivial, frivolous, vexatious, not made in good faith, or similar grounds.  If the system is as corrupt as some believe it is, CFO may be successful in stopping me before I get started.

If anybody has experience with FPMC or Tribunal, and is willing to share their experience, or to help our cause, we encourage and welcome your help.